ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062708
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Henderson | Choose Plastic Free Limited |
Representatives | Mr Conor Rock, BL | GMB Law LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00075831-001 | 29/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00075834-001 | 29/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00075835-001 | 29/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/09/2026 and 26/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore BL
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
For the Respondent the hearing on the 26/04/2026 was attended by Mr Tom Doyle who undertook to be truthful in given evidence to the Commission and was represented by Mr Christopher Murray of GMB Law LLP. The Complainant Mr David Henderson was in attendance undertook to be truthful in given evidence to the Commission. The Complainant attended was represented by Mr Conor Rock BL. This hearing was adjourned until the 01/09/2026. Both the Complainant and Respondent witnesses were made available for cross-exam.
On the 01/09/2026 the hearing was recommenced and for the Respondent it was attended by Mr Tom Doyle and Mr Mark Foley represented by Mr Christopher Murray of GMB Law LLP. The Complainant did not attend and was not represented.
I waited 20 minutes before opening the hearing and concluded at 12 noon with no appearance or word from the Complainant.
The Respondent made an application to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution. I am satisfied that the Complainant was under notice of the hearing and had been represented legally. Having heard from the parties present I formally closed the hearing to consider the application further.
Background:
The Complainant brought three complaints under the following headings: CA-00075831- 29/09/2025 s 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 C A-00075834 29/09/2025 s 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00075835 29/09/2025 s7 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 Evidence was given by the Complainant on the first day and partly by the Respondent to be continued on the second day. The Complainant did not attend, and Respondent made an application to dismiss the complaints |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In light of the Complainant's non-attendance at the resumed hearing, it is not necessary to set out the Complainant's case in detail. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In light of the Complainant's non-attendance at the resumed hearing, it is not necessary to set out the Respondent's case in detail. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having regard to the Complainant's failure to attend the resumed hearing and the absence of any explanation for that non-attendance, I find that the complaints have not been pursued. In the circumstances, I find that all complaints are not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint’s accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00075831- 29/09/2025 s 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 This complaint is not well-founded. C A-00075834 29/09/2025 s 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 This complaint is not well-founded. CA-00075835 29/09/2025 s7 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 This complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 02/09/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
|